| Author |
Topic: Altering the E9th Tuning: Opinions Welcome |
Cameron Parsons
From:
Angleton, Texas
|
Posted 23 May 2010 8:25 pm |
|
What do you all think about repeating strings 6-10 on strings 1-5, an octave apart? Basically, it would incorporate strings 1 and 2 in order of pitch within the tuning. It would look like this:
1. G#
2. F#
3. E
4. D
5. B
6. G#
7. F#
8. E
9. D
10. B
If you want to look at it another way: the tuning would be the same except for strings 1-4 would be reconfigured so that they are sequential in pitch. You would not lose anything that you already have in the standard E9th tuning. Obviously, you could recover the D# with the 4th string and a lever on the altered tuning. You would have to alter your grips, but the same inversions of the major triad are all intact.
The reason I ponder this is because I find that in single string playing, strings 6-10 seem to make more sense in how they are configured. It may help beginners to make more sense of the tuning because they would be able to more easily locate the same patterns/scales/chords/licks in more than one position/octave. What'dya think? |
|
|
 |
Bob Hoffnar
From:
Austin, Tx
|
Posted 23 May 2010 8:56 pm
|
|
It would work but wouldn't make anything better so why bother ? You will still need to practice, study and play for years in order to be a good player. The current standard E9 configuration has been pretty much settled on for a while now because it does work. I screw around with tunings and set ups quite a bit. It can be fun but has never made me a better player. I think Doug Livingston used your idea for a bit. I don't know if he stuck with it though.
If you are into it go ahead and switch your set up and then let us know how it worked out for you.
_________________
Bob |
|
|
|
John Groover McDuffie
From:
LA California, USA
|
Posted 23 May 2010 9:38 pm
|
|
I have been toying with this idea, but just traded away the guitar which would have been easiest to re-configure this way, so I may just keep toying.
Or practice... |
|
|
|
Earnest Bovine
From:
Los Angeles CA USA
|
Posted 23 May 2010 10:20 pm
|
|
I didn't do that exactly. But when I was astarting out I did try
| Tab: |
1 D#
2 G#
3 F#
4 E
5 B
6 G#
7 F#
8 E
9 B
10 G#
11 E
12 B
|
based on Tom Bradshaw's suggested bare-bones Universal tuning in his column in Guitar Player magazine. If you lower 4 and 8, then the bottom 10 are exactly like the common 10 string C6 neck.
I played that way for a my first few years. Then the first time I tried
1 F#
2 D#
3 G# etc
I liked it better immediately and stuck with that.
I'm not sure why it seems better but I think it's because muting (blocking) is easier. Also once in a while I might strum across the B, E G# strings, and the D# and F# would get in the way. |
|
|
|
Scott Shipley
From:
The Ozark Mountains
|
|
|
|
Jack Stoner
From:
Kansas City, MO
|
Posted 24 May 2010 2:08 am
|
|
| As the E9th "standard" was being developed if people didn't try new things it would have never been developed. But as it is today, "if it ain't broke don't fix it". |
|
|
|
Bill Ford
From:
Graniteville SC Aiken
|
Posted 24 May 2010 5:02 am
|
|
Other than having an experimental pedal for trying something new/different, or adding a pull, or group of pulls on a lever, I tend to agree with Jack.
BIll
_________________
Bill Ford S12 CLR, S12 Lamar keyless, Misc amps&toys Sharp Covers
Steeling for Jesus now!!! |
|
|
|
Jack Stoner
From:
Kansas City, MO
|
Posted 24 May 2010 8:52 am
|
|
| Bobbe Seymour's latest newsletter says the same thing about the defacto E9th "standard". |
|
|
|
Jerry Hayes
From:
Virginia Beach, Va.
|
Posted 24 May 2010 9:55 am
|
|
I play an Extended E9 but I tune my 2nd and 9th strings to C#. I do however have lever(s) to raise the 2nd string to D and D# & the 9th string to D. It's not the perfect way but it's what I prefer but I'd never think of changing the "standard" E9 string sequence at all. When I first started messing around with the universal concept I tuned the 1st string to C#, the second to G#, the 3rd to F# and the rest in the regular Uni sequence. It just wasn't comfortable having the high F# below the high G# and you spend a lot of effort picking around it. Also when you leave them in their natural positions it's easier to play fast single string passages such as you do when playing strings 5 2 4 1 3 1 4 2 5 in that order..... I think that all the experimentation was done years ago by the masters and it's been settled that the standard way is best..........JH in Va.
_________________
Don't matter who's in Austin (or anywhere else) Ralph Mooney is still the king!!! |
|
|
|
Rich Peterson
From:
Moorhead, MN
|
Posted 24 May 2010 4:02 pm
|
|
With the standard tuning, the non chord strings can be muted by just pulling the bar back. Very handy for rapid picking.
I read a lot about players with a D-10 who never get the hang of the back neck. Why not set it up for experiments like this? |
|
|
|
Stuart Legg
|
Posted 26 May 2010 12:56 pm
|
|
I deleted my first opinion till I can give my second opinion.
Last edited by Stuart Legg on 27 May 2010 8:29 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
Jody Sanders
From:
Magnolia,Texas, R.I.P.
|
Posted 26 May 2010 7:00 pm
|
|
| Give it a try Cameron. If you like it, keep it. Had it not been for experimenting, the "standard E9th" would not have evolved. I have known Cameron for a lot of years, and he is a super little picker. Jody. |
|
|
|
Marty Holmes
From:
Magnolia ,TX USA
|
Posted 26 May 2010 7:42 pm
|
|
Jody,"Super little picker"is an understatement,Cameron is a friggin MONSTER.That's why i call him Paul Franklin Jr.,the guy is phenomenal!!!  |
|
|
|
Brint Hannay
From:
Maryland, USA
|
Posted 26 May 2010 7:54 pm Re: Altering the E9th Tuning: Opinions Welcome
|
|
| Cameron Parsons wrote: |
What do you all think about repeating strings 6-10 on strings 1-5, an octave apart? Basically, it would incorporate strings 1 and 2 in order of pitch within the tuning. It would look like this:
1. G#
2. F#
3. E
4. D
5. B
6. G#
7. F#
8. E
9. D
10. B
If you want to look at it another way: the tuning would be the same except for strings 1-4 would be reconfigured so that they are sequential in pitch. You would not lose anything that you already have in the standard E9th tuning. Obviously, you could recover the D# with the 4th string and a lever on the altered tuning. You would have to alter your grips, but the same inversions of the major triad are all intact.
The reason I ponder this is because I find that in single string playing, strings 6-10 seem to make more sense in how they are configured. It may help beginners to make more sense of the tuning because they would be able to more easily locate the same patterns/scales/chords/licks in more than one position/octave. What'dya think? |
I use the same notes as your proposal, but retaining the "inside-out" layout of the higher strings:
1: F#
2: D
3: G#
4: E
5: B
6: G#
7: F#
8: E
9: D
10: B
I find the "inside-out" layout is useful for melodic work, especially overlapping notes, and pairs of notes, ringing together, while retaining the ability to play most chords by "grabbing" (at least mostly) a group of adjacent strings, instead of having to pluck specific groupings while avoiding hitting strings that lie in between, physically.
(I raise string 2 to D# on RKR, which also lowers 9 to C#.) |
|
|
|
Earnest Bovine
From:
Los Angeles CA USA
|
Posted 26 May 2010 9:36 pm Re: Altering the E9th Tuning: Opinions Welcome
|
|
| Brint Hannay wrote: |
| the "inside-out" layout |
... also known as "re-entrant" |
|
|
|
Ernie Pollock
From:
Mt Savage, Md USA
|
Posted 28 May 2010 6:36 am Yes Jack
|
|
I agree with Jack Stoner, it don't need fixed!!
Ernie
mailto:shobud75@hotmail.com |
|
|
|
Don E. Curtis
From:
St Louis, Missouri, USA (deceased)
|
Posted 28 May 2010 9:24 am yes
|
|
I'm surprised that none of the Bb6 guys have chimed in on this one as that is how it is layed out. I think Jr. Knight has it too...plus others.
I set up a guitar like this for Dirk Burhans and I believe he (and I) found it easy to "re-finger" the chromatic string riffs and Lloyd licks and such.
You'll adapt to it one day!
Good Luck, you can always change it back...
Don E. |
|
|
|
